Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
384 F.3d 990 (2004)

- Written by Caitlinn Raimo, JD
Facts
Dream Palace (plaintiff) was a live adult nude-dancing establishment located in Maricopa County, Arizona (the county) (defendant). The county passed Ordinance P-10, § 13(e), which provided that an “adult service provider, in the course of providing an adult service, may not perform a specific sexual activity.” “Specific sexual activity” was defined in the statute to include human genitals in a state of stimulation or arousal, actual or simulated sex acts, and fondling or other erotic touching of the genitals or other body parts. An “adult service” was defined to include dancing, modeling, posing, and singing by a person who was nude or semi-nude. The ordinance also prohibited any contact between performers and the audience, requiring that performances take place on an elevated stage, that the stage and viewing areas be separated by a barricade or railing, that neither performers nor patrons extend parts of their bodies across that barricade, and that all performances be supervised by a manager. Dream Palace challenged the ordinance, contending that it violated the First Amendment. The county argued that it was empowered to enact the ordinance pursuant to its general police power.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Scannlain, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.